{"id":1497,"date":"2022-08-08T10:00:48","date_gmt":"2022-08-08T09:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1497"},"modified":"2022-07-15T06:57:52","modified_gmt":"2022-07-15T05:57:52","slug":"social-media-a-viral-promoter-of-social-ills","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/social-media-a-viral-promoter-of-social-ills\/","title":{"rendered":"Social media: a viral promoter of social ills?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Public discourse is the currency in which we exchange our attitudes and beliefs. Social media has proven a double-edged sword with respect to this exchange. On the one hand, it has enabled debate and contact between citizens on a scale previously unimaginable. On the other, this ability to exchange ideas has been all too easily subverted by anti-democratic forces. Indeed, the single greatest problem posed today to the democratic norms of free speech and tolerance is the manner, the speed and scale in which these forces exploit group-identity cleavages, manipulate prejudice and bias, stoke fear and hatred, spread propaganda and misinformation, as well as incite to harassment and violence. These problems are by no means confined to the online world. However, by enabling them to proliferate and amplify, social media acts as a booster of social ills.<\/p>\n

There is ample evidence that social media platforms have played a facilitating role in spreading hateful content and oppressive ideologies, thereby contributing to the recent upsurge in extreme nationalist and nativist ideology in mainstream politics. Social media use has been instrumental to stoking group-divisions through the spread of hateful content based on group-identity (race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability, immigration status, etc.). There is a growth of misogynistic websites, blogs and forums promoting gender-based hate. There is also a surge in hate crimes related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Notably, the systematic use of propaganda on Facebook and Twitter has been instrumental to the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Social media has also been instrumental in propagating oppressive ideological narratives. A rise in online harm has been found to correlate with a rise in violence and hate crimes. Equally, the widespread display of bigotry, bullying and harassment on Facebook and Twitter has been linked to social unrest. As Frances Haugen testifies, Facebook has failed to stop the spread of hate speech<\/a>. For example, the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville (2017) originated as a Facebook event in which many fascist and racist hate groups used the platform to incite to violence. Less mainstream platforms such as Gab, Parler, Telegram, and imageboards such as Reddits (4chan, 8chan), have been the playground for individuals with extreme right-wing views who openly share hateful content as well as creating communities of hate in discussion fora. This has led to a rapid propagation of extreme viewpoints and radicalization (which often correlates with violent actions, e.g. mass shootings in Charleston 2015, San Diego 2019, Christchurch 2019; the 6 Jan ’21 Capitol Hill insurrection).<\/p>\n

There is also evidence that social media platforms have been used as a launchpad for spreading propaganda, mis\/disinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories and political polarization with a view to shape and steer public opinion, whether in the context of voting, such as the 2016 US presidential election campaign and the Brexit referendum, or the Covid-19 pandemic. This is damaging both for public health and the moral fabric of society.<\/p>\n

What are the conditions that make social media platforms into a turbocharging transmissibility machine?<\/p>\n

One way to think about this is that the difference in the medium through which content is transmitted \u2014online vs offline\u2014comes with certain factors in the case of online media that enable social harms to spread and proliferate to unprecedented speed and rate. So, in the past, bigotry has spread by person-to-person conversations, through print media and through broadcast media. Each has an increasing number of people who might be reached. Hence the deployment of broadcast and print media by those seeking to spread hate. However, online media offers something extra. What?<\/p>\n

First, online media levels speaker authority<\/em>. A Facebook post or a tweet has, relatively speaking compared to traditional print or broadcast media, the same form and footprint regardless of whether it is from a trusted news source or a single person. In previous years a racist might have to write a letter to a local newspaper to have it circulated widely and this was subject to editorial choice and given a different status and prominence to the editorial from that paper. This inequality of publication power has been considerably levelled by the internet and social media. A single individual can author a post or video easily using widely available technology. This democratisation of broadcast speech is powerful: it levels speaker\u2019s authority and perceived trustworthiness so that it\u2019s easier to drown out an authoritative information source. This promotes viral spread of bigotry because it reduces the authority and defence enabled by the institutions of civil society.<\/p>\n

Second, online media, particularly that involving advertising, incentivises both platforms and actors in ways that promote the duration of exposure to hate speech and increases its intensity. For example, in the first case, the algorithms employed to promote content\u2014making one speech act more prominent than another in your feed\u2014promote similar content to that already consumed. This leads to content homogenisation<\/em>. Content homogenisation means that if someone has viewed hate speech a few times they will rapidly have their feed dominated by it, rather than by opposing views. Platform algorithms select information that promotes longer engagement online and thus increase revenue from advertising. Thus, there is an incentive on the part of platforms to increase exposure time to hate speech. In addition, posters themselves are incentivised to make speech acts that unleash outrage. This is because such speech acts\u2014in particular those on the extreme end of the Overton window\u2014tend to circulate faster through networks, and thus be more viewed and generate more sharing. In addition, posters are incentivized monetarily for this on some platforms\u2014e.g. YouTube\u2014since they are paid by the number and duration of views of their content.<\/p>\n

Third, most obviously, social media allows the rapid creation of non-geographically based communities. The network infra-structure can create an auspicious environment for the spread harmful content. It makes it easy to create the critical mass of people needed to establish a thriving community of bigots. This is important, because bigotry does not thrive in isolation, but requires constant reinforcement from a community of bigots. These communities support individuals whose bigoted beliefs are questioned by others, so that they maintain adherence to the bigoted belief and attitude system.<\/p>\n

Finally, the network structure of social media platforms satisfies our preference to belong to an in-group and to mix with those with similar preferences. However, this very feature has the effect of limiting the range of voices that people hear, alienating and excluding perceived out-groups, and creating a bubble effect in which perceived in-groups reinforce each other\u2019s beliefs in the absence of challengers and dissenters. This becomes particularly dangerous in the transmission of harmful content such as hate speech, propaganda and misinformation, because there is but a small step to move from ideas to action.<\/p>\n

Picture: Corona Virus from CDC Images Library: PHIL ID #23354<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Public discourse is the currency in which we exchange our attitudes and beliefs. Social media has proven a double-edged sword with respect to this exchange. On the one hand, it […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1499,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Mihaela Popa-Wyatt \"Social media: a viral promoter of social ills?\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[251,44],"custom_author":[351],"class_list":["post-1497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-hate-speech","tag-social-media","custom_author-popa-mihaela"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-o9","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":852,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/political-debate-in-the-digital-age\/","url_meta":{"origin":1497,"position":0},"title":"Political Debate in the Digital Age","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In an ideal democratic world, all citizens are invited to debate political necessities and possibilities to the best of their knowledge and to forge their country\u2019s future in this way. In an ideal democratic world, political debate is, in other words, both inclusive and evidence-led. In a dystopian world, by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Social media links","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/good-democracy-needs-good-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":1497,"position":1},"title":"Good Democracy Needs Good Questions","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"September 25, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo?\u201d This question was asked to both candidates at the second U.S. presidential debate, during the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. As per the \u2018town-hall\u2019 format of the debate, the question was asked by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Changing Attitudes"","block_context":{"text":"Changing Attitudes","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/changing-attitudes\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/09\/questions.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":793,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-build-a-safer-internet\/","url_meta":{"origin":1497,"position":2},"title":"How To Build A Safer Internet","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Earlier this year, the UK government consulted on an Online Harms White Paper that proposes a new model of social media regulation. The response to the consultation was lukewarm at best, and a consistent theme is that the white paper lacks a robust theoretical underpinning. The Carnegie UK Trust identify\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/11\/blog-header.jpeg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1588,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/context-needed\/","url_meta":{"origin":1497,"position":3},"title":"Context Needed","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"It may be hard for us to admit, but many of us are two-faced. That is to say, we act differently depending on who we\u2019re with. We might be polite and affectionate with parents, playful with friends, and calm and composed with colleagues. And that\u2019s no bad thing; adjusting how\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/12\/hugh-han-5pkYWUDDthQ-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1625,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/truth-and-the-facebookians\/","url_meta":{"origin":1497,"position":4},"title":"Truth and the Facebookians","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Imagine a community\u2014call them the \u201cFacebookians\u201d\u2014whose politics is deeply polarized. Their political discourse reflects this divisiveness, but to a very unusual extent. For in making political claims, Facebookians are guided by just one rule: only say (or post) what is liked by your friends and which you are willing defend\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Neon sign with zero \"likes\"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/02\/prateek-katyal-xv7-GlvBLFw-unsplash.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":525,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/changing-minds-through-argumentation-black-pete-as-a-case-study\/","url_meta":{"origin":1497,"position":5},"title":"Changing minds through argumentation: Black Pete as a case study","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 22, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Views on the efficacy of argumentation to change minds in public discourse vary widely. On the one hand, there is a long-standing tradition that emphasizes the significance of argumentation and deliberation for public and civic life (Mill, Habermas etc.), in particular in resolving disagreements and leading to consensus. On the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/Zwarte_Piet_net.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/Zwarte_Piet_net.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/Zwarte_Piet_net.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/Zwarte_Piet_net.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/corona.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1497"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1500,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1497\/revisions\/1500"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1497"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}